Oh neat, I didn't know about that. I'll play around with that when I have some time and see how the behavior works with respect to git clang-format (which formats diffs instead of entire files)
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:29 PM Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > Apparently, you can also disable the formatting of a piece of code by > a magic comment. Could be quite useful for those tables. From the > docs: > ----- > Clang-format understands also special comments that switch formatting > in a delimited range. The code between a comment // clang-format off > or /* clang-format off */ up to a comment // clang-format on or /* > clang-format on */ will not be formatted. The comments themselves will > be formatted (aligned) normally. > ----- > > > On 22 January 2016 at 17:09, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Okay, thanks for the tip! > > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> By the way, one place where you are guaranteed to get undesirable > results > >> is where you have a large array formatted so that the columns line up. > Like > >> in our options tables in the CommandObjects. If you're using git, one > way > >> to avoid having clang-format touch these files is to commit that file by > >> itself, then run git clang-format (since it only looks at staged files), > >> then git commit --amend. But of course that will gloss over any other > >> changes you made to the file as well. But in any case, it's another > trick > >> I've found useful occasionally. > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:09 AM Kate Stone <katherine_st...@apple.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Agreed. My guidance has been that we go ahead and require submitters > to > >>> use clang-format for patches, but to acknowledge that there may be > cases > >>> where this produces undesirable results. Manual formatting to correct > these > >>> issues is acceptable and should lead to discussions about concrete > examples > >>> where the automated approach is imperfect. > >>> > >>> Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com > >>> Xcode Runtime Analysis Tools > >>> > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev > >>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Okay, sounds like a reasonable thing to try. We can always review it > if > >>> it causes any real issues. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I tend to agree with Zachary on the overall principle – and I would > be > >>>>> willing to clang-format functions when I modify them. I’m concerned > about a > >>>>> specific class of functions, though. Let’s say I have a function > that has > >>>>> had lots of activity (I’m thinking of, for example, ParseType off in > the > >>>>> DWARF parser). Unfortunately, such functions tend to be the ones > that > >>>>> benefit most from clang-format. > >>>>> > >>>>> In such a function, there’s a lot of useful history available via svn > >>>>> blame that helps when fixing bugs. My concern is that if someone > >>>>> clang-formats this function after applying the kth fix, suddenly > I've lost > >>>>> convenient access to that history. It’s only available with a fair > amount > >>>>> of pain, and this pain increases as more fixes are applied because > now I > >>>>> need to interleave the info before and after reformatting. > >>>>> > >>>>> Would it be reasonable to mark such functions as “Don’t > clang-format”? > >>>>> That could be also interpreted as a “// TODO add comments so what > this does > >>>>> is more understandable” > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well again by default it's only going to format the code you touch in > >>>> yoru diff plus 1 or 2 surrounding lines. So having it format an > entire > >>>> function is something you would have to explicitly go out of your way > to do. > >>>> So it's a judgement call. If you think the function would be better > off > >>>> clang-formatting the entire thing, do that. If you just want to > format the > >>>> lines you're touching because you were in there anyway, that's the > default > >>>> behavior. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> -Todd > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> > >>> > >>> lldb-dev mailing list > >>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Todd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
